Goal 4: Develop Workforce and Resources

Funding high risk/high reward ideas

There is a need to develop funding mechanisms for high risk/high reward ideas which have a high potential to open new paths for investigation in important fields which would lead to new discoveries.

Submitted by (@vfenik)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC :

The new funding mechanisms would attract more ideas to the field.

Feasibility and challenges of addressing this CQ or CC :

A special expert teams would need to be created to review such applications.

Name of idea submitter and other team members who worked on this idea : Victor Fenik

Voting

74 net votes
95 up votes
21 down votes
Active

Goal 4: Develop Workforce and Resources

Trainee funding support to non‐US citizens that serve in underserved medical areas

Extend trainee funding support to non‐US citizens for those that commit to serving in underserved medical areas in the U.S. for at least five years.

Submitted by (@nhlbiforumadministrator)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Name of idea submitter and other team members who worked on this idea : Research Advocacy Committee, American Thoracic Society

Voting

1 net vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Goal 1: Promote Human Health

Crowdsource NIH Funding

Congress doesn't seem to "get it" regarding the return on investment for biomedical research, but maybe the public does. Create a mechanism whereby individuals can donate directly to the NIH to support research in specific areas (or provide general support).

Submitted by (@jhagood)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC :

Small efforts in specific diseases, multiple foundations, etc. lead to a lot of different "nickel and dime" funding avenues. If some of these funds flowed to NIH, they would be more likely to support meaningful research. People might feel more invested if they felt their $ were going to support the "best and the brightest"

Voting

21 net votes
29 up votes
8 down votes
Active

Goal 4: Develop Workforce and Resources

RO1 funding rate

I would like to suggest the following changes in RO1 funding: (1) Reduce the amount but maintain the duration of each RO1 award to make academic research labs SMALLER but BETTER - This will force PIs pay closer attention to experimental design, to improve the efficiency and accuracy. It may entice more PIs to do more experiments themselves, the best way to reduce errors, maintain consistency and keep in touch with the ...more »

Submitted by (@gtseng)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Feasibility and challenges of addressing this CQ or CC :

This is simple math: when the amount of money is reduced but the number of RO1 applications is not, we will see a drop in the RO1 funding rate. This is frustrating, especially when we question the validity of data from some high-profile labs that list 4 or even more RO1 awards in the 'Acknowledgments' of their papers in high-impact journals. By reducing the amount of RO1 award, NIH can fund more (smaller) labs. This may break the monopoly (or at least reduce the impact) of some big labs in key research areas. The increased participation of small labs highly motivated to answer MORE questions with LESS costs will help revitalize the US Biomedical Research Enterprise.

Voting

-8 net votes
23 up votes
31 down votes
Active

Goal 1: Promote Human Health

Sustainable funding

Our biggest challenge is sustaining domestic interest in research and science. The uncertainty of government funding and the long investment required for research are not compatible. Everything hinges on a reasonable chance at having a future in a chose career. I suggest a minimum of 20% funding level to ensure fairness and diminish politics.

Submitted by (@dfulton)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Voting

10 net votes
11 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Goal 2: Reduce Human Disease

Lack of Collaboration Across NIH Institutes

There are many significant questions in CVD prevention that cross the disciplines represented by the different institutes. For example, the obesity epidemic, poor nutrition, and physical inactivity are relevant to CVD, neurological disease, diabetes, and cancer. Tobacco use is directly relevant to cancer and CVD. Social determinants and disparities affect multiple diseases and outcomes. Reducing obesity will require interventions ...more »

Submitted by (@stephen.fortmann)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC :

Two or more collaborating NIH Institutes could afford to fund creative projects that neither institute can afford alone.

Feasibility and challenges of addressing this CQ or CC :

NIH Institutes have a long history of isolation from one another. This has undoubtedly suppressed creativity and interdisciplinary research. It is inherently bureaucratic and reflects poorly on science. As an outsider I can only speculate about how to address this issue, but it would be well worth some attention at the highest levels.

Name of idea submitter and other team members who worked on this idea : Stephen P. Fortmann

Voting

6 net votes
7 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Goal 4: Develop Workforce and Resources

Productivity of established investigators

Maintaining and increasing the productivity of established investigators. Increase overall funding for R awards and their duration and reduce administrative burden.

Submitted by (@societyforvascularsurgery)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Name of idea submitter and other team members who worked on this idea : Society for Vascular Surgery

Voting

3 net votes
4 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Goal 2: Reduce Human Disease

Funding Limitations Block Intervention Research

The cap on R01 research grants at $500,000 per year has not changed in over 20 years. In the current fiscal crisis for research it has become an immovable block to submitting intervention studies (randomized clinical trials on treatment). Routine advice from NIH staff is to not even try for a larger study. The cap applies to every year, so one can design a trial that costs less than $2.5 million but exceeds $500,000 in ...more »

Submitted by (@stephen.fortmann)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC :

While it is difficult to argue for increasing funding for anything these days, the $500,000 cap on R01 funding is exerting a perverse bias on research. Very few intervention trials can be accomplished without exceeding this limit in at least one year. This means that trials are limited to those of interest to the NIH staff and to the pharmaceutical industry. Investigators interested in solving therapeutic problems are being force to abandon trials and rely on natural experiments and observational studies, which cannot address all important questions. The natural creativity of the scientific community is being artificially suppressed, distorting the field. The notion that pragmatic trials can substitute for explanatory trials is misplaced. Many unsettled questions cannot be pursued in pragmatic trials, which generally reduce informed consent to a degree to call into question their ethics. It is also unclear that many pragmatic trials can be done under the cap, since they often require extensive work with providers and the healthcare delivery system hierarchy.

Feasibility and challenges of addressing this CQ or CC :

Even a modest change in the cap would be very helpful. Perhaps allowing 1-2 years to be as high as $600,000 without triggering the permission process. Alternatively, the review process for studies exceeding $500,000 could be streamlined if the total does not exceed $2.5 million. Other ways to introduce flexibility are possible. This would allow more ideas to go to review and the staff, who are increasingly deciding which grants get funded, will have more to choose from.

Name of idea submitter and other team members who worked on this idea : Stephen P. Fortmann

Voting

3 net votes
6 up votes
3 down votes
Active

Goal 4: Develop Workforce and Resources

R01 funding

Unless we fix and increase the R01 funding rate, which most basic scientists depend upon, we will continue to lose outstanding scientists of all ages and not have the next generation of scientists or the numbers of currently outstanding scientists to answer any of these compelling questions and critical challenges. Related to this, much has been written about the significant failure rate of clinical trials in part due ...more »

Submitted by (@parise)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC :

Survival of the enterprise and maintaining US competitiveness.

Feasibility and challenges of addressing this CQ or CC :

NIGMS has some interesting approaches that help their funding rates. Can any of these approaches be adopted more readily by NHLBI?

Voting

420 net votes
435 up votes
15 down votes
Active

Goal 2: Reduce Human Disease

Maintaining R01 Funding

Independent R01 are the lifeblood for biomedical research in this country. Reducing funding through this mechanism threatens the long term security of the research community and will cause young talented scientists to choose other careers. When funding is limited NIH should employ any measures available to maintain R01 a reasonable level of funding. This could be done by reducing indirect costs, large institutional awards ...more »

Submitted by (@gregory.morley)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Voting

89 net votes
108 up votes
19 down votes
Active

Goal 2: Reduce Human Disease

Funding for Hemostasis & Thrombosis Research

Thrombotic disorders, a result of the inappropriate activation of the hemostatic system, remain major causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Cancer, cardiovascular disease, trauma, and many of the other causes of death in the U.S. frequently culminate in a fatal thrombotic event. Notably, thromboembolic disease affects 500,000 people annually and leads to 100,000 deaths in the United States alone. Current ...more »

Submitted by (@abrams)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC :

Following vascular injury, regulated hemostasis is both rapid and appropriate, thereby quenching hemorrhage. Nonetheless, it is clear that both hemostasis and thrombosis are dynamic processes, characterized by the sequential accumulation and removal of newly activated platelets and fibrin at sites of vascular damage. Over the past 10 years, research in hemostasis and thrombosis has been transformed, broadened and infused with new energy driven by novel technologies and ideas. NHLBI-funded science has revealed new pathways for platelet activation, for platelets in physiologic events outside of the hemostatic response, for coagulation proteases in modulating inflammation and tissue repair after injury, and new mechanistic insights into coagulation. Many tacitly accepted ideas in the field are yielding to these new mechanistic insights that suggest new ways to modulate coagulation leading to therapeutic gain. The NHLBI should continue its strong support of research to understand these mechanisms and should continue to bolster the training that will equip the next generation of scientists and physician-scientists to translate discovery from the lab to the bedside.

Voting

128 net votes
136 up votes
8 down votes
Active

Goal 3: Advance Translational Research

Research Priorities

There appears to be a move towards prioritizing funding opportunities towards the RO1 funding mechanism. A quote from someone else might describe this as "more funding for saving mice". To continue to make an impact on human health, it will be crucial to maintain mechanisms and sufficient levels of funding to answer questions directly relevant to saving lives and improving health of people which are not possible to accomplish ...more »

Submitted by (@susannemay)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC :

Critical questions will remain unanswered with a substantial shift towards RO1 funding mechanism

Feasibility and challenges of addressing this CQ or CC :

This could be viewed simply as a matter on funding prioritization.

Name of idea submitter and other team members who worked on this idea : Susanne May, Ph.D.

Voting

1 net vote
19 up votes
18 down votes
Active